Stakeholder Meeting
2021 Bond/Tax Credit Program Policies
Lisa Vatske,Director, Multifamily Housing & Community Facilities
August 2020
Historic Bond Cap Allocation
• From the program’s start in 1987, housing has used an average of 74.9 percent of the state’s total cap.
• Since 2008, housing has used an average of 94.6 percent issued as housing bonds or allocated as carryforward designated for housing purposes.
• As of August 2020, 737 million out of a total of over 799 million (92%) current year bond cap is allocated to housing.
https://deptofcommerce.app.box.com/v/bond-cap-report-2018
2011-20 Bond Cap Units Produced(WSHFC MF Hsg Program only)
1,283
2,091
2,464
3,1673,028
4,915 4,847
4,499 4,4324,331*
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
*Estimate for 2020
Bond Cap Allocation By County4.68 Billion Total
2015-20
43%
20%
5%2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 1%
20%
2.63 B
978 M
296 M
182 M 172 M 160 M 137 M86 M
41 M
$-
$500,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$1,500,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$2,500,000,000
King Snohomish Pierce Clark Spokane BoS Thurston Benton Whatcom
Public Development Authority
Housing Authority
Commission
Bond Cap Allocation by Type2015-20
4
10
15
8 75
13
15
13 14
18
16
$0
$100,000,000
$200,000,000
$300,000,000
$400,000,000
$500,000,000
$600,000,000
$700,000,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Acquisition/Rehab
New Construction
2020 Second-Round22 Applications
677 Million Requested - 4,171 Units
Clark$56,294,727
9%
King$367,682,211
54%
Pierce$28,835,157
4%
Skagit$15,200,000
2%
Snohomish$174,223,164
26%
Spokane$35,000,000
5%
King (Other)$118,650,000
32%
Seattle$249,032,211
68%
2020 Second-Round 9 Applications
314 Million Allocated – 1,773 Units
Auburn$33,925,000
11%
Federal Way$26,375,000
8%
Redmond$38,100,000
12%
Seattle$215,743,970
69%
Scoring Observations
• Second-Round Scoring Summary• Mean: 87• Median: 88.5• Min: 76• Max: 98
• Threshold Point Categories• Additional LIH Use Period• Donation in Support of Local
Nonprofit• Nonprofit Sponsor
Scoring Observations
• Dec 2019 Bond Round: • Out of 25 cost efficient projects,
8 funded• Out of 11 public leverage
projects, 2 funded• Jun 2020 Bond Round:
• Out of 14 cost efficient projects, 4 funded
• Out of 13 public leverage projects, 9 funded
Public Leverage, 2
Public Leverage, 9
Cost Efficient, 8
Cost Efficient, 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Dec Jun
Average % Public Leverage of Total Project Cost, 2014-Present
37%
29%
31%
33%
27%
22% 22%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Ongoing Discussion Topics
• Program Outcomes• Restructure of Total Development Cost Limits based on
construction type and cost drivers• Weighting and type of cost efficiency points• Acquisition/rehab-how much and what type• Energy efficiency and solar points -tracking with code
changes• Geographic distribution• Competitiveness of projects targeting older adults
Ongoing Discussion TopicsRace, Social and Environmental justice outcomes
• Revisit Opportunity Areas
• Help address race and social inequalities using environmental justice best practices
• Incorporate the University of Washington’s Environmental Health Disparities Map • https://deohs.washington.edu/washingt
on-environmental-health-disparities-map-project
• Contact Eli Lieberman, Senior Sustainable Energy Coordinator, with questions or comments. • [email protected]
*Particulate Matter 2.5 Exclusion Zone Layer in UW Health Disparities Map
Ongoing Discussion TopicsBuilding Features split into 3-postponed
1. Building Features (1 point each, max of 3 points)• Onsite Community Garden• Onsite Fitness Center• An Onsite Business/Learning Center• Media Room• Onsite Playground or Fitness Trail• Bicycle Storage
Ongoing Discussion TopicsBuilding Amenities changes- postponed
2. Resident Services (1 point each, for a max of 2 points)• Meal program• Supportive Services/Community Space with Service Coordinator
3. Community Services (2 points, choose just one)• Onsite Early Learning Facility • Onsite Adult Daycare Facility• Onsite Health Care Clinic• Other Community Service (with pre-approval)
Ongoing Discussion TopicsProposed New TOD points- postponed
Points Criterion
1 0.5 mile walking distance of any transit service
2 (Rural Only) a 0.5 mile walking distance of a bus stop or within a 5-mile distance of transit options (vehicle share program, dial-a-ride program, employer vanpool, Park & Ride lot, public-private regional transportation)
2 0.5 walking distance of transit service that has frequent service*
3 0.5 walking distance Park & Ride, Light Rail Station, Commuter Rail Station, or Ferry Terminal (Trolley and streetcar stops are not Light Rail Stations)
5 0.5 mile walking distance a Park & Ride, Light Rail Station, Commuter Rail Station, or Ferry Terminal, and within a 0.5 mile walking distance of 3 different lines of frequent service*
* Frequent service defined as providing service, or have services planned, at least every 30 minutes between 6am and 6pm on weekdays.
January 2021 Recommendations
Leveraging
Change the name of the criterion to “Leveraging” and expand the sources eligible to be considered to include social impact funds and philanthropy. Add clarification that leveraged funds need to be subordinate and have favorable terms.
Change the point distribution to 1 point per 3% of Total Project Costs leveraged, with a range of 1 to 10 points (3% to 30% of Total Project Costs).
3% of the Total Project Costs 1 point6% of the Total Project Costs 2 points9% of the Total Project Costs 3 points12% of the Total Project Costs 4 points15% of the Total Project Costs 5 points18% of the Total Project Costs 6 points21% of the Total Project Costs 7 points24% of the Total Project Costs 8 points27% of the Total Project Costs 9 points30% of the Total Project Costs 10 points
The proposed changes will expand eligibility of these points to acknowledge smaller contributions, allow funders more options for prioritizing projects, and incentivize new sources of funding.
2021 Total Development Cost Limits
Section 4.20 Utility Allowance Option change to Energy Efficiency Modeling or Audits
The proposed changes will expand the eligibility of these points to all projects and move the energy modeling and audits into the pre-development stage to better incorporate cost effective, energy efficiency measures.
• Points for Alternate Utility Allowances Removed
• New points and specific criteria for both new construction or rehabilitation are tied to ESDS standards. Points will parody changes already implemented in the 9% Program.
Additional Changes
• Length of Commitment becomes a threshold item• Add project weighted average as an option for 100% at 50%
AMI• Maintain building features list- limit 5 points• Maintain current Transit-Oriented Development points• Maintain 2 applications per sponsor limit
Process Changes
• Add language clarifying priorities for Recycled Bond Cap.
• No longer waive application fees for submission in same
year, require application fees for each application
submitted in each round.
• Clarifying language on property transfers